My point is, should the historical record then classify them as terrorist attacks? Even brining in the current example of the home being raided CAN be seen as a terrorist attack. Hell, I wanted to use the criteria provided.

Really, my reasoning behind all of this is to show the complete ambiguity of the term politically and historically. At no point in this thread have I stated, that bin Laden is not guilty of a crime. I call it mass murder. And I'd be completely happy at leaving it with that. My point, is that terrorism, is far too subjective a term and the term alone seems to either incite unneccessary fear or provide a catch all label.

So killing thousands of civillians all over the world to make a point in the name of religion/politics is what....a serial killer, nothing more?